Vasco board blasts SAF: conflicts, R$100m signings, 'profit' R$232m loss | OneFootball

Four-page opinion included in the 2025 financial statements points to financial deterioration, lack of transparency in signings, and a case involving the president of Vasco’s General Assembly

Vasco da Gama SAF’s financial statements for the 2025 fiscal year, released on Thursday night, include a document that goes beyond the numbers: a four-page opinion signed by the three members of the SAF’s Fiscal Council raising serious concerns about the club’s governance. The information was reported by Globo Esporte and confirmed by Papo na Colina.

“Significant deterioration” and profit that would, in practice, be a loss

The Fiscal Council, chaired by Marco Norci Schoreder and also made up of Carlos Antonio Rodrigues Jorge and David Tavares Nunes, says there was a “significant deterioration in the SAF’s economic and financial situation” throughout 2025.

The document goes further and reveals a figure not highlighted in the financial statements: without the accounting effects of the Judicial Reorganization Plan, Vasco would have posted a loss of R$ 232 million in 2025 — not a profit of R$ 81 million.

History of losses since the SAF was created

The opinion reinforces that the SAF has never posted a real operating profit since its creation. The results between 2022 and 2024 were losses of R$ 88 million, R$ 123 million, and R$ 114 million, respectively. The Fiscal Council also points to “significant uncertainties regarding the ability to execute the Judicial Reorganization Plan” and concern over the “lack of evidence of proper compliance with the formal procedures of corporate governance.”

+ From rivals to possible allies: Pedrinho and Leven Siano grow closer at Vasco

R$ 100 million in signings questioned

One of the central points of the opinion is the approximately R$ 100 million invested in player signings in 2026, amid the judicial reorganization process. The Fiscal Council classifies the acquisitions as “at first glance, misaligned” with the need to preserve liquidity and restore the club’s financial balance.

The body also criticizes the “limited level of transparency and reporting to governance bodies” in the signing process, noting that the information is “concentrated in a restricted group of people.” The document recommends adopting approval limits, collective decision-making, and the presentation of economic justifications — including market benchmarks to support the amounts paid for players.

The Fiscal Council notes that it was not systematically consulted about these transactions, being informed only in specific cases — such as the deals involving João Victor in 2025 and Rayan in 2026.

Conflict of interest: the Alan Belaciano case

The second major topic of the opinion refers to a case that had already caused friction among Vasco members in January 2025. The Fiscal Council calls for an investigation into a possible conflict of interest involving Alan Belaciano, president of the club’s General Assembly (CRVG).

Before taking office, Belaciano worked as a lawyer for players who sued Vasco, won their cases, and became Class 1 creditors in the judicial reorganization process — exactly the class in which he allegedly acted as the club’s negotiator.

What the opinion says

The document states that the Fiscal Council did not have access to investigations into the “possible involvement of CRVG members with creditors” and that the case was discussed at a meeting of the body on February 18, 2025.

At the time, Belaciano said he had never acted as Vasco’s lawyer and had not participated in drafting or negotiating agreements with creditors. Legal vice president Felipe Carregal also denied any conflict of interest in an interview with the Expresso 1923 channel: according to him, Belaciano acted only as a consultant, with no decision-making power.

The Max case and the seven disputed proceedings

The opinion also mentions seven cases that Vasco is trying to challenge in the judicial reorganization, alleging improper claims totaling R$ 10.8 million. One of them involves former full-back Max, represented by Moisés Gleicher — a lawyer who took over cases previously handled by Belaciano. Vasco alleges bad faith and an attempt to mislead the courts. The judge overseeing the case ordered statements from the Judicial Administration and the Public Prosecutor’s Office given the “seriousness of the facts presented.”

The case surprised members of SempreVasco itself, Pedrinho’s political group, which had defended Alan Belaciano on previous occasions.

Vasco’s response

Asked by Globo Esporte, the club replied that it treats the matter “as settled,” stating that all dealings with creditors were conducted by Alvarez & Marsal and specialized outsourced law firms during the implementation of the judicial reorganization.

+ Follow Papo na Colina on social media: Thread, Bluesky, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Tiktok and Google News.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.